(c hanged from Holocaust (Stolen Art) restitution Bill)

Andrew Dismore: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	I am grateful for the support that the Bill has received from both sides of the House. At the outset, I would like to thank the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Barbara Follett), her predecessor and her officials—especially Hillary Bauer—for their help in bringing the Bill to this stage. I also pay tribute to those who have campaigned for it, especially Anne Webber of the Commission for Looted Art in Europe, Jon Benjamin of the Board of Deputies and my noble Friend Lord Janner, who has been a stalwart on the whole issue of holocaust restitution and who has agreed to take up the Bill in the other place if it receives a Third Reading today.
	The Bill has changed its appearance somewhat since its Second Reading, through amendments made in Committee, but its effect and the policy behind it remain the same. It is now supplemented by explanatory notes and an impact assessment produced by my hon. Friend the Minister's officials. Its new title—the Holocaust (Return of Cultural Objects) Bill—better describes its purpose, which is straightforward: it is to meet our moral, if not legal, obligation to provide a mechanism for the return to their rightful owners of cultural objects held in national collections that were looted during the Nazi period.
	I have taken a particular interest in this issue since first being elected to the House in 1997. On 17 February 2000, in response to a parliamentary question from me, the then Arts Minister—now my noble Friend Lord Howarth—announced the setting up of the Spoliation Advisory Panel under the chairmanship of Sir David Hirst. He said that the panel would consider and advise on claims from anyone who had lost possession of a cultural object during the Nazi era, when such an object was now in the possession of a UK national collection or gallery. Since then, the panel has adjudicated on a number of claims. It does so in detail, and shows fairness to both sides. Its most recent report, published only on Wednesday this week, concerned eight drawings in the Courtauld collection. It did not uphold that particular claim, although it dealt with the case extremely sympathetically.
	The system provides an alternative to expensive and long-drawn-out legal proceedings, but it does not preclude that remedy if someone wishes to use it. The panel makes recommendations, including for compensation or for restitution, to the Secretary of State. So far, so good. The problem is that the law does not allow restitution for works held in some collections, as there is no power to de-acquire—the current term—items. In
	other museums, the situation is different, leading to unjust, unfair and sometimes downright ludicrous outcomes where one of a pair of objects held in different collections can be restituted while the other cannot. The Bill seeks to remedy that problem.
	The best estimate is that there are about 20 looted items in UK museums, but there could be more. The process of research by families is ongoing, and it can take quite a while to locate an item and document a claim, but not every rightful owner may want restitution. Some might, but others might settle for an ex gratia compensation payment or might simply want a public acknowledgement of rightful ownership by the gallery or museum concerned. It should be possible for the rightful owners to have the object back, once the matter has been decided to the satisfaction of Spoliation Advisory Panel, on its recommendation to the Minister; and that should not be prevented by the unintended consequences of the current law.
	My Bill will provide a process, with appropriate safeguards, to achieve that outcome. It aims to work by agreement and by consensus. If there were a huge dispute, it would not work and the item would not be returned. The process is straightforward. The item claimed is referred to the panel; if the panel finds the object to be spoliated, it makes a recommendation for restitution to the Secretary of State if it thinks that is the proper remedy. If the Secretary of State accepts the recommendation that restitution is appropriate, he or she can trigger a power, not a duty, of de-accession to the museum concerned, which can then transfer the object to its rightful owner.
	The Bill contains a series of safeguards. It does not override any special conditions or trust under which an object may be held. That would require complex legislation, and I baulked at even attempting that, as it would not be appropriate for a private Member's Bill. It is limited to a finite and definitive list of institutions that are set out in clause 1. It also has a 10-year sunset clause to provide, on the one hand, sufficient time to facilitate claims and identify objects, and, on the other, some long-term certainty for the public collections concerned. The Bill will apply to Scotland, at the request of the Scottish Executive; it is not required for Northern Ireland, which does not have this problem.
	Above all, the Bill is strictly limited as to time, place and perpetrator with respect to the original deprivation of the object from its lawful owner. The object must have been taken during the Nazi era, as part of that appalling regime. It is not a Trojan horse for any other art works or cultural items. It is a discrete modest measure, limited in scope and time to rectify decades of injustice. I commend the Bill to the House.

John Whittingdale: I congratulate once again the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) on introducing the Bill and on having a good chance of getting it on to the statute book. It is a great achievement to get a private Member's Bill passed into law. He has been extraordinarily successful in managing to get a large number of other such Bills, some of which I suspect have rather less chance of
	being passed, on to the Order Paper. I think he had to get up early in the morning to get this opportunity; it was time well spent.
	The best way of getting a private Member's Bill passed is to pick up a subject that the Government are committed to advancing, but have failed to do. The Government can then breathe a sigh of relief and use the vehicle provided by the private Member's Bill. That is exactly what the hon. Gentleman's Bill does. This country has long been committed to amending the law to allow the restitution of artefacts and artistic objects that were plainly looted. It has been an embarrassment that we have not done so.
	My Select Committee considered this issue a couple of years ago and called on the Government to make the necessary change. We were just one of a long list of bodies to have done so. I thoroughly support the Bill and I am delighted that it is likely to succeed.
	One has to accept that the Bill is largely symbolic. We amended provisions in Committee to cover Wales, although there are no national institutions in Wales that would benefit from the Bill. It is nevertheless plainly right that we should extend it across the country. Equally, the one object—the Beneventan missal—where there is clear evidence that it should be returned will not be covered by the Bill, unless another application is made, because it has already been considered. It may well be that the Bill's provisions are never used. The Spoliation Advisory Panel has met very few times and the Bill may well pass on to the statute book and lie there. In my view, however, that does matter. It is the fact that we have made the change that matters.
	Many terrible atrocities were committed during the holocaust, and the looting of art is very minor in comparison with some of the horrific events that took place. The difference is that this issue is one that we can do something about and put right. By doing so, we send out a very important signal this morning. On that basis, I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his Bill.

Simon Hughes: From the Liberal Front Bench and on behalf of all my colleagues, including my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) who usually speaks on cultural matters, I congratulate the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) on his Bill. It deals with an issue that I have followed for some years.
	I believe that this is a model of a private Member's Bill. The title is now clearer and the Bill is extremely clear. There is no room for doubt about who the Bill applies to, what it applies to, which countries it applies to or the period to which it applies. The process that has to be gone through is also clear.
	One of the institutions mentioned in the Bill—the Imperial War museum—is based in my constituency. It is a wonderful and prize-winning museum. The other institutions will also benefit from knowing that, as a result of the Bill, they can fulfil their cultural obligations to their users as well as their moral and historical obligations when they apply. The Nazi period, defined in the Bill as from the mid-1930s to 1945, left many scars on Europe—scars on individuals and families on our continent. One scar was that property was looted and never returned. The Bill provides the opportunity to correct that. The House is united on this Bill—a very good discrete piece of work that will put right something that has been sadly neglected for too long in spite of the many efforts to put it right in the past.

Edward Vaizey: It falls to me to put on record from the Opposition Front Bench our congratulations to the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) on introducing this private Member's Bill. I also congratulate those he mentioned in his opening remarks, particularly Anne Webber, who has campaigned so assiduously for this measure, and David Lewis who worked with her and has been instrumental in keeping the Bill and the campaign at the front of my mind. The campaign has been long running. The spoliation committee was set up in 2000 and I think that my mother is a member of it, making the issue close to my heart. She is also a former trustee of the Imperial War museum, which she thinks is one of the finest museums in the country.
	It is clear that every Member who has taken an interest in this issue supports the Bill as being long overdue. It may well be the case that the Bill is nothing more than symbolic, but it is no less important for that as it puts on to the statute book a clear commitment from our national museums to return any object that has been found to have been looted during the Nazi period.
	I welcome the Bill and assure the House that it has Conservative support. I hope it will proceed to the other place this morning with the minimum of fuss.

Barbara Follett: The Government have been pleased to support this Bill, which, gladly, has enjoyed a quick and smooth passage through the House. This is due in no small part to the expert handling of it
	by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore), and to what he has rightly described as a friendly consensus between the parties. Like him, I welcome that.
	The Bill is a short and carefully balanced measure that will rectify an anomaly in the way that national museums are able to deal with claims for the return of items lost during the Nazi era. Most importantly, it does not override the fundamental principle, supported by successive Governments, that the trustees of museums and galleries are the rightful guardians of our national collections and that they should be responsible for taking decisions about items in their care. The final decision on whether to transfer an item from a museum's collection will continue to be taken by museum trustees where the two conditions that trigger the power to de-accession are met: that the Spoliation Advisory Panel has recommended the return of the item and that Ministers have agreed. Museum trustees should not have an unfettered power of disposal, however. The Government remain absolutely committed to protecting our national collections and will resist all attempts to see them broken up. The power to de-accession human remains that was given to museums in 2005, and the measures we are discussing here in the Bill, recognise that these are very special cases that warrant particular attention. Members have thus rightly stated that it is important that the matter is approached in a balanced way, and I think we have managed to achieve that. We have worked closely with my hon. Friend to get the Bill to this stage and, as part of that work, we have considered its compatibility with the Human Rights Act 1998. Gladly, we are satisfied that it is fully compatible.
	Although this is a small and simple measure, we should not underestimate its importance. Throughout the second world war, the lives of millions of people were affected by the systematic campaign by the Nazis to wipe out whole peoples and their cultures. Part of that campaign was the looting of cultural treasures from both public and private collections, with many families being forced to give up prized possessions and heirlooms with little or no compensation. A tremendous effort to recover this looted art was made in the immediate aftermath of the second world war through the dedicated work of the "Monuments Men", a tiny band of 350 art historians, museum curators and professors. In May 1945, they began the work of finding, securing and returning the millions of pieces of art, sculpture, books, jewellery, furniture, tapestries and other cultural treasures looted, lost or displaced in the years of upheaval.
	In 2000, the United Kingdom set up the Spoliation Advisory Panel. This has gone on to become a widely recognised and respected source of advice around the world. I should pause here to correct a statement I made in Committee. My hon. Friend was indeed right in saying that the Dutch restitution committee, which was modelled on the UK panel, is still accepting claims. While on the subject of international relations, I would also like to mention that the UK is represented at the conference on holocaust era assets, which is currently taking place in the Czech Republic. I am very glad that Lord Janner, who has done so much to bring this issue to the fore, is part of the UK delegation. The conference will be looking at a number of issues concerning the fate of holocaust survivors and of Jewish property confiscated during the war, and it will be seeking to increase international efforts in this area.
	In Committee, my hon. Friend said that he had discussed the case of the Beneventan missal with the British Library and the effect of the Bill on earlier cases considered by the Spoliation Advisory Panel where return was recommended but was not possible because of statutory restrictions on disposal. Let me clarify that the power in the Bill will not be retrospective. If, after the Bill comes into force, a further claim is made for an item that the panel has already considered, it will be up to trustees of the institution concerned to decide whether once again to refer the claim to the panel. The panel would then decide whether to look at the claim again. If, after considering the new claim, the panel recommended the return of the item, the trustees would have the power to return the object. Where an ex-gratia payment had been made to the claimant on the first referral, this would need to be returned.
	Let us review what the Bill will achieve. It will give the trustees of the bodies named in the Bill an additional power to transfer objects from their collection where the transfer is recommended by the designated panel and where that recommendation is approved by the Secretary of State, and Scottish Ministers in the case of an item in the Scottish national collections. As I said in Committee, the intention is to designate the Spoliation Advisory Panel.
	The Act will expire 10 years after the day on which it is passed. Questions were raised on Second Reading about the tax implications of the Bill. The Treasury is looking into this and will consider whether any tax rules need changing as a result of these measures. I am pleased to be able to announce that the Scottish Parliament yesterday passed the legislative consent motion in order that the Bill might apply to Scotland.
	A number of amendments to the Bill were also made in Committee and it may be helpful if I summarise the main changes. The bodies to which the Bill applies are now found in clause 1. The power to return victims' property is set out in a new clause 2. This might be an appropriate moment to provide further clarification on the point raised by the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Vaizey) about whether the term "cultural object" needs to be defined in the Bill. Although the Bill as introduced included such a definition, it has been substantially amended, with the able assistance of parliamentary counsel, and I can now say that the Bill as amended does not need to define a "cultural object".
	The Bill gives trustees a power to return any object which is in the collection for which the trustees are responsible where the two conditions are met, and we believe this is sufficient.
	The new clause 3 defines the advisory panel for the purposes of the Act. The panel is to be designated by the Secretary of State and he may designate only a panel whose functions consist of considering claims relating to events occurring during the Nazi era of 1933 to 1945. Clause 4 deals with the short title, extent, commencement and sunset clause. Provision was also made for the Bill to extend to England and Wales and Scotland, although the power is not needed for museums in Wales. The short and long title of the Bill have been amended. The original reference to "stolen art" was too restrictive and does not reflect the many ways in which people were deprived of their property. The Spoliation Advisory Panel's terms of reference do not define the circumstances of loss and do not therefore limit its consideration to items that were stolen. The new long title better describes the Bill's purpose, which is to give the trustees of named bodies an additional power to transfer cultural objects in their collections.
	This concludes the consideration of amendments made in Committee, and I should like to end by thanking my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge), for the work she did on the Bill, by thanking the officials who have worked very hard with my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, and by once again congratulating him. This is a real achievement, and the Bill is in excellent shape going forward. I hope that it receives wide support in the other place.

Andrew Dismore: I am grateful to everybody for their comments this morning. This is an important measure. It might not be used—on the other hand, we cannot say that for sure: there may be other such cases. As I said earlier, up to 20 such items are in dispute. However, what is important is that we be seen to do justice to the victims of the holocaust and their families, and this Bill will do that. It closes, I hope, a chapter that we opened with the setting up of the Spoliation Advisory Panel nine years ago. I hope that now, we have finally produced the mechanism that will allow people to have back the objects taken from their families by that evil regime, the Nazis, between 1933 and 1945, and that the Bill will now receive its Third Reading.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Consideration of Bill, as amended in the Public Bill Committee.
	 Third Reading.

Willie Rennie: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	I am grateful for the opportunity to give this Bill its Third Reading. For a child eager to prove their maturity, the driving licence is often a symbol of adulthood. I am not quite sure what my driving licence says about me—whether its ink-splatters and holes indicate maturity, or a now slightly tattered politician—but the learner's first lesson is filled with excitement and anticipation, and as the seat belt clicks into place and "kangaroo" petrol is put in the tank, there is a great sense of pride and excitement. For parents, there is only a feeling of dread at the number of hours they will spend on country lanes, never quite being sure whether this will be their last lesson—ever in this world.
	I recall driving round the country roads of Fife on a dark, wet and windy night with my mother constantly reaching for a brake pedal on the passenger's side and never quite finding it. There is still a hole in the carpet on that side of the car. However, the thrill when I passed my driving test was unimaginable. I suddenly felt like a man, even though I was still a teenager. That is an important point, because many of those who pass their test are still children, and we entrust those who teach them with a duty of care and responsibility. I want to know that when my son reaches for the car keys, the person who will teach him to drive has been through the system, has been properly tested and audited and has the right qualifications.
	That is why the case of Lesley Anne Steele, which had the potential to crush confidence in the whole driving instruction authorisation process, was horrifying. In 2005, Lesley Anne, a constituent of mine, was enthusiastically learning to drive. She was progressing well and gaining confidence with every lesson. She was looking forward to passing her test and enjoying the freedom that that brings. After one particular lesson, her instructor, James McNair Bennett, asked whether he could use the convenience in her house. Being obliging, Lesley Anne agreed, but Mr. Bennett had something else in mind. He sexually assaulted her in her own home. He was charged by police, and apparently admitted the offence immediately.
	This is what Lesley Anne later told me in a letter:
	"On the day of the trial Mr. Bennett was found guilty of assaulting me and with immediate effect was placed on the sex offenders' register. I was relieved that this was finally over and thought that Mr. Bennett wouldn't be allowed to continue to teach. The following day I received a call from a friend who had just seen Mr. Bennett out teaching. Then my partner spotted Mr. Bennett on the Monday, picking up a pupil close to our house",
	just round the corner. Not surprisingly, Lesley Anne was angry—furious, in fact. She was disgusted not only by the original assault, but by the fact that Mr. Bennett was allowed to continue to operate as a driving instructor. The fact that he was out teaching the very next day was rubbing her nose in it. She was raging with anger and rightly so.
	However, what made Lesley Anne explode was the response from the authorities. She made numerous calls to the Driving Standards Agency, which were never returned. On one occasion she did get through to the appropriate person, but was told that nothing could be done to help her. Because she was so furious, Lesley Anne subsequently waived her right to anonymity. She secured coverage in the national media to highlight her case, so that she could campaign for changes in order that others would not have to go through what she went through. At that point, she asked me for my help.
	How could a sexual predator be allowed to continue to teach vulnerable young people in such a closed environment, when the judicial process had already determined he was a sex offender? I find it unbelievable that that situation was ever allowed to happen. However, Lesley Anne and I worked together to overhaul the process, and, along with the Government's hard work, we secured a number of achievements, such as criminal record checks for all approved driving instructors. The first trawl weeded out eight people who would still be teaching to this day if Lesley Anne had not fought that case. Secondly, the profession of driving instructor is now included in the notifiable occupations scheme and its Scottish equivalent, so that the DSA's registrar is informed immediately of any convictions. In fact, Mr. Bennett could still be teaching today if that scheme were not in place, because the courts were not obliged to tell the DSA that he had been convicted. Thirdly, customer care at the DSA was overhauled following the dreadful response to the case.
	Most importantly, Lesley Anne got an apology from the then Minister and the officials. We were very grateful for that, because it made such a difference to her. Having to expose herself to media coverage was, like the event itself, a traumatic experience, so that apology was very important. However, there is still unfinished business, hence the Bill before us.
	Because the appropriate process has to be gone through, there is a 45-day period between a driving instructor being convicted or removal from the register being indicated, and actual removal. In fact, it can take months—45 days is the minimum period. The registrar must first write to the instructor advising them that he is minded to remove their name from the register. The instructor then has 28 days to make representations against removal before the registrar can make a decision. The registrar must then notify the instructor of the decision and wait at least a further 14 days before removal can take effect. There is then a right of appeal.
	It is right that all those measures be in place—it is important to have the right safeguards, so that representations and appropriate appeals can be made—but it is unacceptable to have a period of 45 days during which sexual predators could be out there teaching young people to drive. That is why I want the power of suspension to be introduced—so that young people cannot be preyed on by those such as James McNair Bennett, and so that such people are not allowed to exploit that loophole ever again.
	The Bill's purpose is therefore to give the registrar the power to suspend driving instructors. It aims to close the 45-day-plus loophole, and it introduces the power to suspend when the registrar is already considering removal from the register. The registrar would be permitted to impose a suspension only when he believes that the instructor concerned would, if they were not suspended, pose a significant threat to the safety of members of the public. The Bill, rightly, also includes a package to compensate for loss of reputation and earnings when the process goes wrong. This only covers the period of suspension—between the point at which notice of intent to suspend is given and the decision on removal—and the estimated cost is likely to be a maximum of between £50,000 and £60,000 per year. It is not likely to be anywhere near that. The estimate is that it may affect five people every year, but that is probably the upper end, because the trawl of the criminal records picked up only eight people—and covered a longer period of time.
	The Bill applies not only to approved driving instructors but also trainee instructors. It is important that the mass army of trainee instructors is also covered, so that no one slips through the net. An amendment in Committee blocked a potential loophole connected to trainee instructors' right to extend their certification. They will still have the ability to extend it, but not for the purpose of avoiding a suspension.
	The DSA does not have an unlimited period to consider the removal from the register. It is limited to 75 days after which the suspension is withdrawn. That is an important safeguard. The instructors, of course, still have the right to appeal that natural justice requires. This is a simple, but essential, Bill, and I am grateful to the three Front-Bench teams for their support and indeed encouragement throughout this process.

Willie Rennie: That is a very good question, and I hope that the Minister will be able to assist me with it. My hon. Friend has been very helpful in asking a question to which I do not know the answer. I am grateful for that intervention although I hope that he does not make another.
	I do not wish to give the impression that the driving instruction profession is riddled with sex offenders as almost every one of the 40,000 driving instructors is of good character and ability and has adopted the highest professional standards. I have been determined throughout the three years of this battle not only to protect learner drivers from sexual predators, but to protect the reputation of driving instructors. This Bill will help to enhance that reputation, because people will be able to have confidence in the process and the system.
	This has been a long battle. It has been more than three years since Lesley Anne knocked on my door and during that time I have been grateful for the support of so many hon. Members. They include the hon. Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) who was the Minister responsible at the time. He immediately recognised the problem, apologised personally to Lesley Anne and set in train many of the changes that I have set out this morning. I am also grateful to his successor, now the Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Jim Fitzpatrick), who committed considerable time and effort to the Bill, overcoming many hurdles in the process.
	The Bill would have fallen at Second Reading if it were not for two Members. The first is the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), who used considerable political capital to ensure the Bill progressed. He overcame the process to ensure that the Bill secured a Second Reading. The second—and some may be surprised at this—was the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope), who was in his place earlier. His wise advice and support was gratefully received, and I hope that that is not a reason for others to change their mind about supporting the Bill. I am genuinely grateful for his wise counsel.
	I also thank the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Goodwill) and my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mark Hunter) who served on the Front Benches in Committee and were very supportive. I also thank the Minister today. He is new to this Bill, but he caught on to it quickly in Committee and understood the details.
	This issue has had an extensive hearing in Parliament—in Westminster Hall, as a ten-minute Bill and now this Bill. I am grateful for the support of the sponsors of my ten-minute Bill and of this Bill, and to the Committee members last week who tested the Bill in an extremely professional and fair manner. As they have been trained to do, the Whips have been lurking in the shadows, but have been benign on this occasion. They did inquire how long I intended to speak today—perhaps they had an ulterior motive.
	I am also grateful to the Clerks and the departmental and DSA officials, who are impressive for two reasons. First, they are good at their job, and secondly they can explain it to me, and that is no mean feat. I have also been fortunate to have excellent members of staff, both in my constituency and in the House. I thank them for their work on this Bill, especially David Hall—who has since moved on—and Caron Lindsay who did the initial spadework in digging out the loophole. John Foster and my other members of staff in Dunfermline have also been fantastic.
	John Myers devoted his life to teaching the art of safe and responsible driving. He built the Myers school of driving in Dunfermline into a thriving business that is respected and trusted in the community, and he was very supportive of my efforts. Unfortunately, John passed away recently so I am not able to thank him in person, but I am grateful for his support and for giving me the confidence that the driving instruction profession were behind my efforts.
	Finally, and most importantly, I thank Lesley Anne Steele, my courageous constituent who stood up, braved the media and insisted that a wrong be put right so that others need not suffer as she clearly did. Lesley Anne has now passed her driving test and is a proficient driver. She is also now happily married and enjoying life. Let us pass this Bill for her, for her sake and for the thousands of people who learn to drive every year. I commend the Bill to the House.

Willie Rennie: I thank my hon. Friend for reinforcing the point that I was unable to answer his question— [ Laughter. ]

Simon Hughes: My hon. Friend is giving me a hard time, but it is not justified.
	My hon. Friend has done himself, his constituents, the country and, above all, his constituent, Lesley Anne Steele a great service by ensuring that this gap in the legislation has been filled. Everyone under the age of 80 or so has had to pass a driving test to be able to drive in this country—none of us are of that older generation. My dad certainly never had to pass a test, although he was a very good driver and a member of the Institute of Advanced Motorists. To pass a test, almost everybody has some formal lessons, usually at least eight or so. They are not cheap, so young and enthusiastic learners—although some people learn later in life—commit themselves to someone, trusting in their competence and in their integrity. My hon. Friend has exposed the loophole in the legislation that meant that we could not guarantee the integrity of the people doing that instruction.
	It is almost invariably the practice, for good reasons of safety, that the person who is learning to drive is on their own with the instructor—many people, when they do their driving practice with family members, also do not have anyone else in the car—and that is another obvious reason why offenders should not be able to continue in that profession, and why those under suspicion should also be suspended for as long as the matter is being investigated. In the case that my hon. Friend has mentioned, the abuse was not committed in the car, but sometimes that does happen, so the powers in the Bill are very important.
	My hon. Friend has also made sure, with the help of civil servants, no doubt, and of the people to whom he has paid tribute, that the Bill also provides the guarantee of natural justice—it ensures that compensation is available to anybody who is improperly suspected or suspended. However, the precautionary principle must apply in these circumstances—I am very clear about that. It is much better to err on the side of being careful than on the side of taking a risk. That is why the power to suspend and then, if something is unfairly alleged, to compensate, is much better than a power only to defer suspension until the facts are established. I am sure that that is the right way round.
	My hon. Friend is the second example this morning of a colleague realising that a wrong needed to be righted, pursuing it through all the proper channels and being absolutely determined about it. We owe thanks to the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) for his Bill and to my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and West Fife for this one.
	My hon. Friend paid tribute at the beginning and the end of his speech to the courage of his constituent, and we need to remind ourselves of that. Many people in her circumstances, understandably, would not want to go public about such an issue. But for her bravery in being willing to put the general public interest above her own traumatic experience, we would not have had the opportunity to use her enthusiasm, understanding and commitment as the motivation behind this legislation. I hope that we will all join in paying tribute to her and wishing her and her family all the best. We should thank them, because they have done a public service that my hon. Friend has replicated this morning.

Julian Brazier: I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Willie Rennie) on introducing this Bill. It does what private Members' Bills do best—it addresses a specific, narrowly defined wrong with a clearly defined remedy. I also want to pay tribute to his brave constituent, Lesley Anne. I should perhaps declare an interest in that I have a son who is going through his driving lessons. As he is a large, rugby playing medical student, I do not think that he is especially vulnerable, but I have another son who has just passed his test and another who will come up for it very shortly, so I am heavily focused on driving tests.
	It was quite right for the hon. Gentleman to remind us what an important profession driving instruction is. The 40,000 driving instructors in this country have played a large role in the way in which successive Governments have pushed down the accident rate. Having been responsible for a fatal accident on the roads, I take a close interest in these matters. The way in which the death toll on the roads in this country goes steadily down and down, year on year, is very encouraging. Indeed, it compares favourably with that in many comparable countries.
	The hon. Gentleman has produced a very sensible, balanced little measure. He has sensibly built in a 75-day time limit, so that an unfortunate driver against whom a malicious or unfair allegation has been made is clear about the period involved. He has also, quite rightly, included the appeal and compensation mechanisms.
	Clearly, this is too small an issue for long-term statistics to be collected, but it would be interesting if, after the first couple of years for which the Bill is in operation, a small written statement was issued to say how often its terms had been applied and whether there had been any successful appeals. There is a slight danger, thinking back to what the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) said about the fact that driving lessons are almost always one-on-one, that if word got around, a disgruntled pupil, for example, might use the measure in completely the wrong way against a driving instructor. I hope that that will not happen but it will be interesting to see, after the first year or two, what the statistics show and whether there have been a number of successful appeals, because we might need to fine-tune the legislation.

Paul Clark: I am delighted to be here in support of the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Willie Rennie). I thank him for introducing the Bill and congratulate him on his considerable efforts over recent years in pursuing the underlying issue that the Bill seeks to address. He has certainly shown a commendable tenacity.
	I shall pick up on one or two comments that have been made. The hon. Gentleman talked about the responsibility of a parent when children are taking their driving lessons and working towards a test to give them the independence held by some 34 million people in our country who have full driving licences. We want to know that our children are in safe hands and the hands of people whom we trust.
	The vast majority of our driving instructors who are fully approved, and those who are training, are doing an excellent job in accordance with all the right codes of practice. Each and every year we ask our driving instructors to undertake that training. Some 800,000 people passed their driving test in 2007-08, which is about 44 per cent. of those who took it.
	The hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) recognised the great achievement in this country of the reduction in the number of road casualties. I am delighted to say that the figures published yesterday show that Britain and Sweden are joint first place among the major nations for having the safest roads. However, some 2,500 people are still killed on our roads every year. We need that figure to fall still further. It has already come down by 14 per cent. since last year and by 40 per cent. over the past 10 years, but we need to go much further. Our driving instructors are part of ensuring that we have the highest standards for training new drivers-to-be.
	It is quite ironic. Today I have the privilege of supporting this Bill about driving instructors and ensuring that people like Lesley Anne Steele are protected, and yesterday I was announcing road safety statistics. I want to put on the record my thanks to Steve, the driving instructor from Gillingham, for his forthcoming patience with my daughter, who took her first driving lesson yesterday. I congratulate him on his nerves of steel, and apologise to my daughter for that comment. That brings home—I probably should not go home tonight; I suspect that I will be in trouble, and Rachel will kill me—the fact that we put trust in people in such professions, and in many other walks of life. I am grateful for the work that they do.

Paul Clark: I certainly take those comments on board. If I can give the hon. Gentleman any specific figures before the end of the debate, I will. Undoubtedly, in times of difficulty in other areas of employment, and in a recession, the number of people considering such a route increases, so he is absolutely right.
	I think that I am right to say that without the change in law that the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife has resolutely pursued for several years, there would be a continuing risk to learner drivers from the very people in whom they put their trust; we have put that on the record. We have an opportunity to amend current legislation to provide further protection for the public, and learner drivers in particular. We must take that opportunity to ensure that others do not have to endure the emotional distress experienced by his constituent, Lesley Anne Steele. In Committee, and in proceedings on the Floor of the House on the money resolution, I put on record my thanks to his constituent for making her complaint and taking it forward, and for raising and highlighting the issues, no doubt at great personal expense. I do so again now.
	The issue is not just theoretical, as we have said. It arises from the clear case that the hon. Gentleman outlined, and his constituent's resolve to ensure that we close the loophole in legislation. The problem that the Bill seeks to address centres on the inability of the registrar of approved driving instructors—the profession's regulator, and an official of the Driving Standards Agency—to prevent registered or licensed driving instructors from providing paid tuition with immediate effect, when that instructor represents a significant threat to the safety of the public. I will talk about "significant threat" later, because that will help to clarify one or two of the points raised about whether the provision could be used maliciously, as can happen in the teaching profession, where complaints are often made. That was raised in Committee.
	The issue is not new, as the legislation dealing with the registration of driving instructors and their removal from the register has been on the statute book for many years. Part V of the Road Traffic Act 1988 contains the key provisions relating to the registration of persons who wish to provide paid instruction in the driving of motor vehicles. To provide such instruction lawfully, a person's name must be on the register maintained by the registrar, or that person must be a trainee instructor to whom the registrar has issued a licence.
	It might help if I briefly remind the House of the legislative framework covering the approval and registration of those who wish to give driving instruction for payment. As I mentioned, part V of the 1988 Act is the main primary legislation. It was amended in part by the Transport Act 2000 and will be further amended by as yet uncommenced provisions in the Road Safety Act 2006, to which I will return shortly. The relevant secondary legislation made under the 1988 Act is the Motor Cars (Driving Instruction) Regulations 2005. As hon. Members would expect, those regulations specify the detailed requirements applying to trainee driving instructors and approved driving instructors.
	For trainee instructors, the regulations specify the process that must be completed in order to join the register, the fees for the tests taken and other important matters, such as the time limits that apply. However, as I will explain, simply passing the qualifying tests does not guarantee trainee instructors admission to the register. For approved driving instructors, the regulations clearly identify the requirements that apply to them on joining the register and thereafter.
	As the House would expect, gaining entry to the register is not a trivial achievement. The standards are deliberately set high to reflect the responsibility that driving instructors will have. Approved driving instructors instil into learner drivers life-saving skills, principally the skill of how to drive safely on our increasingly busy roads. Total annual road mileage is 10 times greater than it was in 1950. Indeed, it has increased by 14 per cent. since 1997, so we recognise the even greater demands on our driving instructors these days.
	The exams are in three parts: there is a theory test, a practical test of ability and fitness to drive, and a practical test of ability and fitness to instruct. The subject matter of the first two parts—the theory and practical driving tests—is similar to that covered in the test taken by learner drivers, but the standards expected of those taking those two parts are significantly higher than those that apply to learner drivers. The part 1 examination—the theory test—consists of two sections. There is a set of multiple choice questions and a hazard perception test. The multiple choice part of the driving instructor test consists of 100 questions, of which a candidate must pass 85. That compares to the multiple choice element of the test taken by learners, which consists of 50 questions, of which 43 must be passed.
	The hazard perception test has a maximum possible mark of 75. For the driving instructor test, the pass mark is 57; that compares with 44 for learner drivers. The ability and fitness to drive test for driving instructors—the part 2 test—lasts an hour, whereas for learner drivers there is about half an hour of on-road driving. Potential driving instructors are allowed only six driving faults, whereas learners are allowed 15. To add further rigour to the process, there are restrictions on the number of attempts that can be made in some of the tests, and time limits also apply. For example, the application for the test assessing ability and fitness to instruct must be made within two years of passing the theory test. Also, no more than three attempts may be made at the test assessing ability and fitness to instruct.
	The pass rate for the instructors theory test is 51 per cent. For the instructors practical driving test it is 50 per cent., and for the final part it is only 30 per cent. The overall effect is a rigorous selection process that ensures that only competent instructors gain admission to the register. The fees are £111 for the instructors theory test, and £111 each for the instructors practical driving test and the test of ability to give instruction.
	Some trainee instructors will never have been in a situation where they have had to provide formal tuition of any kind. For them, the test of ability and fitness to instruct can be quite daunting. Not only do they have to demonstrate knowledge of driving theory and practice, but they have to satisfy the Driving Standards Agency examiner that they are competent in giving instruction. Knowing the subject is one thing, but being able to impart it to pupils is at least equally important. Many of us know that someone may be expert in a given subject, but being able to impart that knowledge to others, possibly as a teacher, is not second nature. Imparting knowledge and high standards of driving to others is a skill in itself.
	The trainee licence scheme helps trainee instructors to prepare for the test of ability and fitness to instruct. Provided that trainees have passed the first two parts of the qualifying examination—the instructors theory and practical driving tests—they can apply to the registrar for a licence that permits them to give paid driving instruction without being on the register. Effectively, they are exempted from the requirement to be registered in order to give paid instruction. If granted, the licence lasts for six months but can be renewed in certain circumstances, such as where illness has prevented the trainee from taking the test of instructional ability during the period of validity of the licence. A condition of the trainee licence is that the holder must be supervised by an approved driving instructor during the currency of the licence. The cost of the trainee licence is currently £140.
	The hon. Gentleman indicated that the Bill was not originally intended to cover trainee instructors. Uncommenced provisions in the Road Safety Act 2006 will repeal the trainee licence provisions in the Road Traffic Act 1988 and replace them with an exemption arrangement, to be made by statutory instrument. That will enable the DSA to introduce greater flexibility into the qualifying process for entry to the register, which will benefit trainee instructors while retaining the ability of the registrar to permit trainee instructors to undertake paid instruction and so gain experience in preparation for taking the test of instructional ability.
	I have outlined the technical requirements, but there is another important requirement. Both approved driving instructors and trainee instructors must be "fit and proper" persons either for their names to be entered in the register or for them to be granted a trainee licence. The phrase "fit and proper" is not defined in the legislation, and the legislation is probably the better as a consequence. It allows the registrar to make a judgment as to an individual's suitability to be an approved driving instructor or trainee instructor, based on their character and conduct. That is vital when we consider that approved driving instructors and licensed trainee instructors give instruction, often to young people under the age of 18, on a one to one basis, in an enclosed environment, and possibly in a remote location. For that reason, the conduct expected of driving instructors must be exemplary.
	The checking process was discussed in Committee, and the hon. Gentleman today mentioned criminal records. It is the applicant's criminal record in which the registrar takes most interest. Where a potential instructor has been found guilty of a serious offence, particularly one of a sexual or violent nature, it is most unlikely that they will be considered suitable to be admitted to the register or to be granted a trainee licence.
	The registrar considers each application on its merits, taking account of the individual circumstances. An applicant, for example, who was found guilty 30 years ago of committing an assault at the age of 18, and who has a clean record since, may be considered more suitable than someone who committed a sexual assault in the past two years. It will depend on the situation and the person in each case. The registrar must take account of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. It would be wrong to prevent people from becoming an instructor simply because they had a criminal conviction, but where he has a significant concern about the suitability of an individual to become an instructor, the registrar will refuse the application.
	The hon. Member for Canterbury requested a review of the way in which that discretion had been used. I am sure we can take that on board, as part of the DSA reporting process. All hon. Members want to ensure that we have the highest standards and catch individuals likely to offend as instructors. We all want the legislation to deliver what we expect from it.

Paul Clark: I will not speculate on the detailed provisions of other areas. It is always right that there should be fairness and openness in our systems when we seek to take away someone's livelihood. We must have that balance. That is why it is good that the Bill provides for a compensation scheme. However, it is equally important, as I know the hon. Gentleman agrees, that we protect people such as Lesley Anne Steele.
	The time issue is important, because once the registrar decides to remove the instructor's name from the register after those 28 days, having considered the representations that have been made, there is a further period of at least 14 days before the notice can take effect. The instructor also has the right of appeal against the registrar's decision. Currently, the appeal is to the transport tribunal, but in future it will be heard by the new first-tier tribunal.
	The statutory time scales mean that, taking everything into account, it takes a minimum of 45 days for an approved driving instructor's name to be removed from the register. So even where an instructor is found guilty of a serious offence but is bailed pending sentencing or receives a non-custodial sentence, the registrar has no means by which he can quickly prevent him from continuing to give paid instruction. Therefore it is essential that that loophole is closed.
	I want to put on record the work and commitment of my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman), and acknowledge his immediate recognition of the issue on meeting the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife and his constituent, and the apology that he gave at that time. In November 2006, the hon. Gentleman secured a Westminster Hall debate to discuss the laws regarding driving instructors who commit sexual offences and obtained a commitment from my hon. Friend to look at whether the removal process could be shortened. That was followed by a series of parliamentary questions on the same issue.
	In October 2008, the hon. Gentleman introduced the Driving Instruction (Sexual Offences) Bill under the ten-minute rule, which unfortunately did not get beyond First Reading. At the same, the Department for Transport and the DSA were actively considering options. They proposed a handout Bill in late 2008, the Driving Instruction (Suspension and Exemption Powers) Bill, the title of which may sound familiar. That was not taken up by those successful in the ballot, but the hon. Gentleman approached my immediate predecessor, who I am delighted is present—my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Jim Fitzpatrick), who has now flown to the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and we congratulate him on that—requesting details of the long and short titles of the handout Bill. Having been given the information he had requested, the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife introduced this Bill on 25 February 2009. Since then, as he has recognised, he has been supported by the Government and their officials through its Second Reading and its Committee stage on 17 June.
	It is also right that I should place on record the support that the hon. Gentleman has received from my predecessors, the hon. Members for South Thanet and for Poplar and Canning Town. Both of them identified the need to amend the legislation so that cases such as those of Lesley Anne Steele should not happen in the future, and committed to doing so at the earliest opportunity.
	The DSA had also been busy exploring non-legislative options for further improving the robustness of its procedures for ensuring that approved driving instructors are fit and proper persons on admission to the register and remain so. In February 2007, the agency succeeded in persuading the Home Office that the profession of driving instructor should be included within the notifiable occupation scheme. That was followed in July 2007 by its inclusion in the equivalent scheme in Scotland. Under the scheme and its Scottish equivalent, the registrar is notified of criminal convictions received by approved driving instructors. The registrar receives, on average, about five notifications a month, but the majority relate to minor crimes. The scheme is not perfect. For example, a court may be unaware that the defendant is an approved driving instructor, particularly where the charge is not driving-related and where the approved driving instructor has more than one occupation.
	Such a limitation does not significantly undermine the inclusion of driving instruction within the notifiable occupation scheme. However, it does mean that the volume of notifications received by the registrar may be an underestimate of the numbers of convicted instructors. It underlines the need for further information, such as that arising from criminal record disclosures, and that picks up the point made by the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) about learning the lessons from other cases.
	In March 2007, the DSA introduced enhanced criminal record disclosures for new applicants starting the approved driving instructor qualifying process. That means that the registrar receives information for all applicants on past convictions—even those covered by the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. By the end of May 2009, more than 41,200 trainee instructors had been checked and 319 refused entry to the register on the basis of the information obtained via the disclosure.
	Since April 2008, all approved driving instructors applying to renew their registration, which expires and must be renewed at least once every four years, have also been required to provide an enhanced criminal record disclosure. That is intended, in part, to verify that approved driving instructors are complying with the condition of their registration that requires them to notify the registrar of any convictions they receive during their period of registration.
	Those approved driving instructors who joined the register prior to March 2007, and whose registrations have yet to come up for renewal, have been encouraged to supply voluntary enhanced criminal record disclosures for which the DSA has met the cost. As a result, almost 40,500 approved driving instructors, out of about 45,000 on the register, had been checked by the end of May 2009, and 42 have been removed from the register on the basis of information obtained through the disclosure.
	The House may be wondering how the system of disclosures is funded. I can advise that the cost is met by the registration fee paid by approved driving instructors, which is £300 for four years. It increased from £200 in April 2008. Disclosures have become an essential part of the process conducted by the registrar to satisfy himself that an approved driving instructor, or someone seeking to join the register, is a fit and proper person. The DSA has publicised those changes, so instructors are aware of them. In 2008-09, 865 approved driving instructors resigned from the register, although that was for a variety of reasons, including ill health. Some approved driving instructors with serious criminal records may decide to leave the profession rather than supply a criminal record disclosure. However, as I indicated earlier, the discovery of a criminal conviction would not automatically mean that the registrar would commence removal proceedings.
	Although those non-legislative measures have helped to give us greater confidence that only the most suitable instructors are able to gain access to the register of approved driving instructors and to remain on it, they do not address the problem of the registrar's inability to take immediate and effective action as soon as a major risk to the general public is identified. As the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife has identified, the 45-day removal process, during which the approved driving instructor can continue to instruct, is a significant problem. If the Bill is successful, it will address that issue by allowing the registrar, while the statutory removal process is under way, to suspend an approved driving instructor immediately he presents a significant risk to the public.
	Although the main focus of the Bill is, by necessity, on those convicted of serious sexual or violent offences, we do not wish to preclude other circumstances in which an instructor poses a significant risk to the general public and suspension is appropriate. For that reason, I should expect the suspension power to be used in cases where the approved driving instructor is found in a periodic-check test to have given woefully inadequate instruction to learner drivers—that is, when the instruction is so poor as to create a serious road safety risk to his pupils and other road users. I remind the House that suspension can be imposed only alongside other statutory processes. Suspension cannot be used in isolation; its purpose is to prevent an instructor from continuing to give paid instruction pending the completion of a separate but linked process.
	I should also like to reassure the House that the suspension power would be used only infrequently. The Driving Standards Agency estimates that, in an average year, the power would be used on no more than five occasions, and Members should note that there are about 45,000 approved driving instructors on the register. On that point, I also remind the House that the overwhelming majority of approved driving instructors remain fit and proper persons throughout their careers and perform a valuable role in preparing our young people for driving safely.
	Hon. Members may have concerns about granting the registrar the power effectively to deprive an approved driving instructor of his livelihood. The hon. Member for Canterbury made that point, and I regard such concerns as reasonable. We would not wish to support a Bill that resulted in approved driving instructors being suspended solely on the basis of allegations or rumours, which sometimes happens in other professions. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty) raised that concern in Committee. There needs to be a balance to the suspension power, so that an instructor is suspended only when a clear need has been identified. In connection with that, I agreed in Committee that the registrar will publish details of the circumstances in which he will consider using the suspension power. That should provide further reassurance to the House that the power will be used sparingly and judiciously.
	The balance is achieved by including a compensation scheme in the Bill. The scheme will cover an instructor who is suspended but not subsequently removed from the register, or whose removal is reversed on appeal. It will also apply in circumstances when a trainee is suspended but his licence is not subsequently revoked, or whose licence revocation is overturned on appeal. The compensation scheme will be introduced by regulation. It is important to do that by regulation, rather than in the Bill, because the regulation-making power will allow the Secretary of State to tailor the precise nature of the compensation scheme to the circumstances applicable at the time. However, the Bill explicitly states that the Secretary of State "must" introduce a compensation scheme, and it is important that the provision of a compensation scheme be a mandatory requirement, rather than a discretionary provision, as it provides balance—to which hon. Members have referred—for the suspension power. It will not be possible for the registrar to use the suspension power unless there is a compensation scheme in place.
	The compensation scheme will extend to all the circumstances in which an approved driving instructor may be suspended and in which a trainee licence may be revoked or suspended. Eligible applicants for compensation will be able to claim for two distinct categories of loss, and the likelihood is that a suspended person will have suffered income loss. Let us assume that he has been suspended for two months. He will not have received two months' income and, if driving instruction is his main source of income, he may be significantly out of pocket.
	There are also non-income losses, such as damage to the goodwill of the instructor's business, as many driving instructors are self-employed. The circumstances resulting in the use of the suspension power may seriously affect an individual's business, and in those cases it is right that compensation be payable for such damage. The suspended person may also have incurred additional costs as a result of having had to take out a loan to purchase essential items during the suspension period.
	In addition, the Bill allows for the inclusion of
	"any other matters which relate to such a suspension and are provided for in the scheme".
	That provides for the flexibility to adapt the compensation arrangements in the light of experience, but I remind the House that we will be dealing with a very small number of cases of suspension and potential compensation each year.
	Inevitably, there might be disputes about the amount of compensation granted or whether any compensation should have been granted at all. In those circumstances it is important that there is an appeals mechanism and, indeed, that an independent third party be the arbiter. That role will be filled by the first-tier tribunal. There is a right of appeal in respect of most of the registrar's decisions on whether someone should be admitted to the approved driving instructor register, or on whether an application for re-registration should be granted.
	However, there is no such provision in respect of the registrar's decision to suspend someone. Should an instructor who is suspended be able to appeal that decision of the registrar? We have considered the matter carefully and concluded that the answer must be no, as such a provision would be counter-productive. The registrar's intent when suspending someone is to prevent them immediately from being able to continue to give paid tuition, because they present a significant risk to the general public. Introducing an appeal arrangement would simply negate that purpose.
	However, the instructor would retain the right of appeal to the first-tier tribunal in respect of the registrar's decision to which the suspension was linked—for example, the removal of the approved driving instructor's name from the register or the revocation of their licence. We must not lose sight of the main purpose of the Bill: to protect the victims, whom we all recognise from the case of Lesley Anne Steele.
	I said at the outset that I would need to return to the Road Safety Act 2006, as we need to amend some of its provisions if the suspension power is to be fully effective. As I have explained, under provisions in the Road Traffic Act 1988, partially qualified instructors may apply for a trainee licence issued by the registrar of approved driving instructors, but the provisions underpinning those arrangements will be repealed once the 2006 Act is fully commenced.
	One significant change relates to trainee instructors. The 2006 Act replaces the trainee licence scheme provisions with those that support a system of exemptions from the requirement to be registered. That could be used to exempt particular groups of instructors from the requirement to be registered—for example, the police, who already enjoy a class exemption so that they can give instruction within the police force. Unfortunately, it would be very difficult to introduce an effective suspension scheme unless individuals were required to identify themselves before accessing an exemption and the registrar were able to make a judgment about whether they were fit and proper. Without that, the effectiveness of any suspension provision would be severely constrained.
	To address that problem, the Bill amends the 1988 Act to retain a role for the registrar in supervising access to any exemptions once the 2006 Act is fully commenced. In addition, the Bill makes amendments so that the registrar may charge a fee in connection with applications for the granting of exemptions. That goes some way to replacing the 1988 Act's trainee licence fee-charging provision, which the 2006 Act will repeal. That in turn is why we debated the Ways and Means motion on Monday evening, and I am grateful to the House for having approved it so that the Bill could be properly considered in Committee. The Bill is important and goes a long way towards making sure that a loophole in the current legislation is closed. It has come about thanks to the hard work and tenacity of the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife.
	The hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey raised the issue of numbers. I say to him that there is no power to restrict the numbers on the register. There is no artificial level at which we cap; basically, commercial decisions drive the number of instructors. The evidence that we have is that there is no current shortage of approved driving instructors.

Jacqui Lait: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	I start by declaring an interest. I am a private sector leaseholder and a director of the management company of the block of flats in which I live. I used to be chairman, but resigned because of a potential conflict of interest due to a planning application from the block next door.
	I congratulate the two Members who have got their Bills through to Third Reading today; I hope that they will see their names in lights. After 17 years in this place, this is my second private Member's Bill, and it stands about as much chance of getting through as the first one did. That first one was about a similar subject; it was about commonhold and leasehold issues before 1997. This Bill, however, is much more concentrated on public sector leaseholders. I say here and now that I am conscious that the Bill is defective; should a miracle happen and it gets into Committee, I will be only too happy to correct it. There is an implication that the Bill applies to private sector leaseholders. My concentration and interest today is on public sector leaseholders, and I would seek to correct the mistake, to which I freely admit, in Committee.
	I thank those who have helped with the Bill. I start with the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes). Frankly, I lifted most of my Bill from his Bill of last year. At that time, I pointed out from the Front Bench the same defects in his Bill for which I have just apologised in mine. He and I have long had a concern about the rights of public sector leaseholders and the unfairnesses that they face. I hope that, for once, we are in step together because we have to right the wrong that public sector leaseholders face.
	I thank the many groups of public sector leaseholders that have briefed me extensively on their difficulties. I am thinking of leaseholders from Westminster, Camden, Islington and Orbit South, which has been transferred out of Bexley housing department. Part of the reason why I am interested in this subject is that I, too, have public sector leaseholders in my constituency of Beckenham. I have long sung the praises of the housing association, Broomleigh. However, the association and I have crossed swords over many years on the issue of public sector leaseholders. I think that it is beginning to get things right; it is certainly not as backward as some of the other registered social landlords that we are having to deal with. I also thank the Clerks and the Library for their help in preparing the Bill. I am grateful to everybody who has contributed to the Bill.

Jacqui Lait: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and I agree entirely. In fact, in due course I shall mention a letter that I have received from somebody who not only found themselves in that position but has been told how much they are paying compared with other tenants, which is way out of kilter. The hon. Gentleman and I are at one on this issue, and anyone who understands the problem knows that this is a cross-party issue, because it is the same wherever it happens.
	Some people may remember that earlier this year, an elderly lady from Ramsgate aged 91, received just before she died a £16,000 bill for work on her flat to meet carbon dioxide emissions standards, and she had to take out a mortgage. That was, to say the least, insensitive. Leaseholders are simply told how much they have to pay. We have all worked very hard for people in the private sector, who in contrast are consulted and have the right to get their own quotes and pay in different ways, and whose management charges relate only to works to be done.
	As a slight digression, I add that most of the problems arise from the original legislation that we passed in the '80s giving people the right to buy. At the time I was not in the House, but I suspect that the thought was that the public sector would behave in the same way as the private sector. Sadly, all these years later that is not what has happened.

Jacqui Lait: One of the problems of discussing leasehold is that we become involved in hugely complex and technical detail. My understanding, however, is that the Government have their own problems with the 2002 Act. Implementing it has not been as easy as writing it. I am merely trying to encourage the Government to do what they wanted to do in that Act. It must be plain that I am in consensual rather than opposition mode today. The hon. Member for Brent, North (Barry Gardiner) and I are in agreement: we both want to improve the position of public sector leaseholders.
	Another problem that causes many people grief is the inefficiency of the contracts when they are let. I referred earlier to a very sweet and sad letter that I had received. Jean Harwood wrote:
	"My big immediate problem is time. Originally HFI... told us all work had to be completed by 2008. I cut my holiday short as a result but nothing happened. Then January 2009 was given to start erecting scaffolding. Still nothing. However, they did start on the first block on March 2nd. It took 5 weeks to completely erect that. Incidentally, we were told they would erect two blocks at a time. The second block was started April 27th and the third block May 5th. I'm also informed that when this block is finished the fourth block will be done (that is where I live). To date NO windows have been replaced. I was assured by HFI that they would start work as soon as the scaffolding went up and would be down within 2 weeks on completion."
	That is not an unusual tale for such contracts.
	Martin Kneidinger wrote to me about
	"Very expensive charges compared to the work delivered and the time it took to finish. (More than a year!) Finished work is very poor quality and would not be acceptable on any private site in London I have been working on as an architect
	We chose the 2 year interest free payment plan and to do that we had to start paying our bills before work was finished. Nowhere near finished to be more specific."
	Those issues come up time and again. Here is a quick example from Karen Neale, who writes about
	"these grossly inflated...piecemeal and inaccurate estimates".
	I could go on endlessly, but hon. Members will be grateful that I shall not.
	Something else that has emerged—this has happened more recently—is that management costs on such contracts have escalated dramatically. Again, however, leaseholders have no control over them. I am grateful to Dr. Peter Wright of Camden for a couple of examples. For one contract for lighting maintenance, he has worked out that
	"40.24 per cent. of the costs are due to management costs; leaseholders will pay 10 per cent. administration...on top".
	Therefore, 50 per cent. of the costs of that contract went on administration and management. It is beyond belief. Nobody in the private sector would dream of charging that.
	In response to another contract, the Churchill Gardens lessees association wrote:
	"We do not consider the costs of the bids to be excessive. However, we do have concerns about add-ons of 40 per cent. totalling £460,000 on the contract price."
	The association continued:
	"What is the 3.8 per cent. contractor's overhead contingency for? If the tender preparation is outsourced, where is the corresponding saving in fees? Why is the contractor not responsible for his own safety audit? Where is the £24,700 fee for plans—
	£24,700 for plans?—
	"going? Why is a separate asbestos survey needed? The Estate has been so surveyed many times previously."
	I could go on. Some of the costs being dumped on public sector leaseholders are outrageous.
	Then there are the experiences of the leaseholders of Orbit South, who have recently been transferred from Bexley. My hon. Friend on the Front Bench, the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), who used to be the member of the Greater London authority for Bexley and Bromley, will be well aware of the problems of the leaseholders of Orbit South. They have been in touch with me because Orbit South has taken exactly the same approach to them. Those leaseholders are challenging their monthly management costs, which increased from £75 a month in 2003-04 to £116 a month this financial year, and will potentially be £140 a month next year. Even in the private sector, the management charges in my block—it is a rather pleasant block, as everybody will have seen recently in  The Daily Telegraph—are not that size. It is unbelievable that management costs should be so much and that the leaseholders should have no redress or ability to negotiate.

Andrew Dismore: That clearly should not happen.
	The social sector leaseholders working party was reconstituted by the Government in 2005 and reported two years ago. It recommended the introduction of separate legislation for social sector leaseholders because of the increasing complexity of social sector leasehold management as a result of the various rules and regulations relating to the arrangements. The statutory consultation process under section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 did not really suit the arrangements often found in respect of social landlords, particularly the way that ALMOs, local authorities or housing association have to go through particular arrangements laid down by the Government.
	I wish to refer to a couple of cases from my constituency in order to illustrate the problem. One of them concerns Woodburn close, whose tenants wrote to me in April saying that for several months they had heard nothing from their ALMO, Barnet homes, but that then in a short space of time they received letters informing them of a planning application that was being submitted. Those letters did not, however, detail the estimates and so forth for the work. The Woodburn close tenants go on to say:
	"Despite previous requests none of the lessees have received quotes as to the cost of the works...It appears as if Barnet Homes have made a decision and are steam rolling it through, without due consideration to the lessees who have to pay."
	Then there was a public meeting. The letter continues:
	"the initial letters were in respect of the windows, and it was not until the public meeting that Barnet Homes declared their intention to replace the aerial system at this time, and clean out the gutters".
	The tenants make the point that digital switchover was not for another three years, and that estimates of the cost of the work had not been received. The letter continues:
	"we have to question the necessity of doing"
	this work
	"as there is a Sky system which does not require scaffolding."
	That system could have been installed at a cost of between £150 to £200 per home. The tenants complain that
	"Barnet Homes have carried out this exercise without due consideration of the lessees issues".
	Barnet Homes wrote back to me saying that the
	"design and details of the scheme have now been finalised",
	and it anticipated consulting tenants within the next two to three weeks by letter, with a breakdown of the proposed costs. That was on 11 May. It has not happened yet, so far as I can see. Again, Barnet Homes completely ignored the leaseholders' alternative suggestion regarding the TV aerial. It simply bulldozed through, saying, "This is what we're going to do."
	I received a letter from the tenants expressing continuing concern, "as it appears they"—Barnet Homes—
	"are likely to provide the lessees with a range of quotes and that everything has already been decided. This includes the comment in respect of the digital switchover, which does not acknowledge there may be cheaper alternative systems that provide the same service."
	The windows replacement is being done under the decent homes initiative. The letter continues:
	"It appears that they are wedded to single suppliers and are not giving the lessees full opportunity to comment as part of this consultation."
	Barnet Homes wrote back to me saying that the scheme is part of the decent homes initiative,
	"which is being carried out under a five year Partnering Agreement with Balfour Beatty...The framework is not a traditional tender contract"
	and Balfour Beatty had obtained different quotes, but as far as the leaseholders are concerned, that does not make a great deal of difference. The ALMO says it is not
	"wedded to a single supplier",
	but in effect, it is.
	We should also consider the quality of work—a point made by the hon. Member for Beckenham. There seems to be a general feeling among contractors—big and small—that anyone who lives on a council estate is entitled to second-class service and second-class quality of work. The contractors think they can get away with blue murder, charging top-dollar prices for substandard work. Time and again, I receive complaints about that. Such work might be treated as "snagging", but a lot of it is not. Some of it is quite serious, and whether snagging or serious, this issue is a major irritation to leaseholders—and, indeed, tenants—who have paid through the nose for work that has not been done properly.
	A case was brought to me last year concerning major works in Frith court. The lessees told me:
	"The rewiring was supposed to be being done, and the trunking has been installed but has not been wired. It is...not clear how it can be wired up and the trunking looks extremely ugly, too."
	I saw that for myself. The lessees said that apparently, the windows are being replaced, but that that was not necessary for the flat in question because they had already been replaced before they bought the property. They have been charged £4,500 for renewing the guttering, which has not been done to a decent standard in several of the blocks. The soffit boards have been replaced, as have the common parts windows. The front and rear doors have been painted, but to very poor workmanship, as I again saw for myself. They are expecting a further charge of another £2,000 for rewiring.
	Barnet Homes wrote to me saying that it gave section 20 notices the year before, giving a "brief description" of and reasons for the works, with estimated block costs and contributions. If it is admitting to a brief description, that is probably bad enough. It also said that the electricity trunking had been painted to blend in with the wall. Well, it did not look that way to me. It looked appalling, with great chunks of steel-work inside the common parts. I certainly would not put up with that, and I do not see why the tenants should have to. Barnet Homes also said that remedial work had been done to the gutters and snagging items that it had been agreed were to be rectified. It gives the costs involved for the work, which are astronomical. It could be done more cheaply.
	The hon. Member for Beckenham has made a really important point about the social sector. Contractors tend to think that they can milk the council and do not realise that it is not the council or the ALMO that pays. They think, "It is public money—we can load up the contract." They do not realise that the money actually comes from the leaseholders and tenants. That is part of the problem. I have given two examples that have recently come to my attention, but time and again tenants and lessees have raised with me their concerns about some of the charges being imposed. Sometimes, the people involved are in the building trade themselves and they say that they could contract for the work far more cheaply, but they are not allowed to do so.
	The hon. Lady has hit on an important issue. As she says, the Bill is not perfect and requires considerable amendment, but I am certainly minded to vote for it on Second Reading in the hope that changes can be made in Committee.

Bob Neill: I see that she nods to confirm that, and so I think we can give it our "in principle" support, in the expectation that in Committee improvements and refinements can be made to ensure that we address precisely the issues that are at hand.
	My hon. Friend struck a very important note about basic justice, which is something that I have come across with my constituents. There is an imbalance of treatment between leaseholders in the private sector and leaseholders in the public sector. I hope that that will weigh compellingly with the Government as they decide their stance on the Bill, given the concessions made by my hon. Friend about amendment in Committee. I cannot believe that the Government, any more than the Opposition, would wish to see leaseholders who happen to be in the public sector being disadvantaged in comparison with those in the private sector. Ironically, they are sometimes disadvantaged in comparison with tenants in the private sector, depending on the attitude of the council and the RSL.
	There has been a long history of monopolies sometimes being unresponsive to their tenants, either deliberately or because of a culture that seeps into an organisation. I can remember that attitude when I was a London borough councillor, back as long ago as when the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) recalled his experiences in Westminster. When I was a parliamentary candidate in Dagenham, the local authority was monolithic in terms of dealing with its tenants. Since then, things have improved there, as they have in many local authorities, but an underlying problem remains. Under the current legislation, the local authority leaseholder, for the reasons set out by my hon. Friend, is at a disadvantage in comparison with others. I think it right that that disadvantage should be addressed.
	I agree with the hon. Member for Hendon about the risk posed by contractors sometimes taking advantage of that monopolistic position. That is made worse when the leaseholders are unable to apply the same basic leverage as other tenants would. I hope that for that reason, if for nothing else, the Bill will commend itself to the Government.
	I was interested, too, to note the lacuna that seems to exist in relation to the Tenant Services Authority, which I was very interested to find out about. I am not seeking to be unduly party political, but it seems strange that the Government, having created two quangos in place of one to deal with housing, have reached a situation where there seems to be a gap in the available protection. Some people—the public sector leaseholders—fall through the system and are covered by neither quango. I hope that, although that does not come within the scope of this Bill, we could sensibly address that failing. I have great respect for the Tenant Services Authority, its excellent chairman, Anthony Mayer, who I have known for a number of years, and its team. Clearly, somebody needs to act as a champion for public sector leaseholders and I hope that the Government will look beyond the scope of the Bill and redress that imbalance as a matter of justice.
	Let us consider the question of contracts, repairs and so on, and the inevitable pressures, to which my hon. Friend rightly referred, on RSLs, in particular, to seek larger contracts and to bundle them together to seek efficiencies. It is important to try to strike a balance between that and the risk of unfair treatment from a largely monopolistic supplier. Again, that seems to me to be a compelling reason for bringing forward this Bill.
	It is surprising that the Government have not so far been willing to move on this matter. I hope the when the Minister for Regional Economic Development and Co-ordination responds, she will take that on board. I was a little disappointed last year to receive an answer to a written question to the then Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Salford (Hazel Blears), which stated that
	"it will not always be appropriate or helpful to make identical provisions for social sector and private sector leaseholders in order to provide them with similar rights and protections."—[ Official Report, 13 May 2008; Vol. 473, c. 586W.]
	I was surprised to hear that, and even more surprised to hear it at a time when the right hon. Member for Salford was Secretary of State. I would be surprised to hear it from anyone of her party. The wording may have been unfortunate. It is not language that I would like to adopt on behalf of my party, because where we can do so in a proportionate and sensible manner, we ought to try to ensure as level a playing field as we can.
	As I say, I hope that we can move to a situation in which one group does not fall through the gaps in the system, particularly given that all parties seem to desire to encourage mixed communities; that is certainly the Government's stance. They want people of different tenure to live side by side. I would not disagree with that. That makes it all the more unfair if, probably not through a deliberate policy, but just as one of those perverse consequences that arise from an omission somewhere in the drafting of legislation, one group of occupiers is in a less advantaged situation than the others. I hope that that, too, is a compelling reason why the Government should at least let the Bill make progress, with a view to seeing what refinements can be made in Committee.
	The other points were compellingly made by my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham, so I do not intend to keep the debate going at any great length. When she responds, I am sure that she will make it clear that the provision on the £12,000 payment is intended to relate to the public-sector leaseholder. In the private sector, there is more negotiating power—power that those in the public sector do not have. With those observations, and the assurance from the promoter of the Bill that she would amend it in Committee, I hope that the House feels that the Bill raises important issues. It is not perfect in its current form, but its proposer does not pretend that it is. It raises issues that need to be addressed, and if it did go forward to Committee, hopefully we could come up with a solution that deals with issues that, on the face of it, potentially lead to injustice and unfairness in the treatment of people. It ought to be possible, with good will, to find a sensible and proportionate means of addressing that.

Rosie Winterton: My hon. Friend's point follows on from the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore), which relates to the procurement practices of local authorities, as well as some of the rights in existing legislation.

Rosie Winterton: I thank my hon. Friend for making that point, and I assure him that we would look into it—and, no doubt, discuss it with him—if we were to introduce further consultation on this matter.
	 [Official Report, 14 July 2009, Vol. 496, c. 3MC.]
	For the first time, all leaseholders are entitled to receive a prescribed ground rent demand at a certain time before such sums became payable. This provided important protection against a leaseholder inadvertently forgetting about his obligation to pay a ground rent and then facing claims for additional costs alleged to have been incurred by a landlord in recovering these sums.
	In the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008, we amended the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to enable us to introduce measures to ensure that leaseholders will automatically receive a regular statement containing information about their service charges, with the same right to see supporting documentation. Landlords who do not provide the statement or make the supporting documents available will be open to challenge at a leasehold valuation tribunal. We are currently drafting regulations to give effect to this measure, along with other measures to provide protection in respect of service charge moneys held by landlords. Leaseholders will have sanctions if this is not complied with, including the right to withhold service charges. Also, when leaseholders receive demands for service charges and administration charges, they must be given a summary of their rights and obligations in relation to such charges. That means that when they need to know, they are made aware of their important rights where such sums are concerned. Leaseholders can now challenge demands for administration charges covering matters such as payments for consent, which they are required to pay under the terms of their lease. Leaseholders of houses can now also take over the responsibility for insuring their properties from their landlords.
	I turn to an issue that will be of particular interest to the hon. Member for Beckenham. We have looked at the issue of local authority leaseholders who find it difficult to pay service charges. The Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 increased the options available to local authority landlords to help leaseholders in this position. Since April 2009, landlords have been able to offer interest-free equity loans and to buy equity shares in properties. This is in addition to their long-standing ability to offer loans on varying terms, to spread payment over a longer period, to agree to delay payment until the property is sold, or to buy properties back outright from owners who are in arrears with service charges or cannot cope with the costs of looking after their home. The Government fund part of the cost of such buy-backs by letting the authority retain more of the receipts from property sales.
	Under the Social Landlords Discretionary Reduction of Service Charges (England) Directions 1997, landlords can also cap service charges if certain conditions are met, including if a leaseholder will suffer exceptional hardship. In 2002, we undertook a review of issues relating to major works service charges paid by local authority leaseholders. That was done because of concerns raised over high service charges that were being levied on local authority leaseholders, principally arising out of work being carried out to bring homes up to an acceptable standard under the decent homes programme. We learned that many local authorities, particularly in London, already offer a range of forms of assistance to their leaseholders. They offer a range of payment by instalment options; some agree to delay payment until the property is sold; others even offer a discount if the bill is paid in full promptly.
	A written ministerial statement on 29 March 2007 outlined the Government's position and the options on offer to leaseholders at that time—support which, as I have already mentioned, has been improved by legislation. However, I can assure the hon. Lady and other Members present that we are keeping the position under review in the light of current financial and housing market conditions. I therefore hope that Members will agree—although I completely take on board the points made today—that the Government have improved the rights and protections available to leaseholders in many significant respects. They have been empowered by rights that were not available until we took this action.
	Let me deal with the Bill's proposals in more detail, and begin with the proposal for involving tenants in works. As I outlined earlier, the consultation provisions in the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 which were amended by the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act of 2002, already cover most of what is proposed here. There is a statutory requirement that all landlords must consult their leaseholders before carrying out works to their buildings and estates. These existing consultation requirements, which are contained in regulations made under the 1985 Act, cover most of what is proposed in the Bill.
	I have already mentioned how the existing consultation rights give leaseholders an input into the procurement process. We have to ask whether the additional requirements proposed in the Bill—to consult on specifications for tenders, to put forward counter proposals and to hold ballots—would add to the consultation process. It would not be helpful to tenant or landlord if we were to replicate or replace rather than add to the process. We need to be cautious not to increase the complexity, time scales, costs and burdens of consultation, given that in some cases those would be passed on to leaseholders.
	We also want to be clear that there is no risk that leaseholders could also force landlords to accept counterproposals that could put them in a position where they are not able to fully meet their contractual obligations to all leaseholders—and to their tenants—to maintain and repair a building or estate. I am sure that those are consequences that the hon. Lady would want to ensure were avoided in her Bill.
	Proposed new section 20ZA(1)(g) would require the landlord to make certain documents available for 10 years. Retaining documents relating to service charges, works and agreements should, at the very least, be a matter of common sense where it is not already enshrined in best practice or as a statutory requirement. But it is sensible for both leaseholders and landlords to retain those documents. Because leaseholders can challenge the reasonableness of service charges through a leasehold valuation tribunal, even when they have paid the charges, landlords need to be able to justify those charges with documentary evidence. Without such evidence, they are likely to have a weak case that will not impress a leasehold valuation tribunal. However, it seems unlikely in practice that a leaseholder will need to see information relating to service charges that goes back some 10 years.
	Further, leaseholders can currently request a summary of service charges, representing the last 12 months, and can ask to see documents supporting the summary.
	Also, as I have previously mentioned, we will be proposing changes to the legislation so that leaseholders will automatically receive a regular statement containing information about their service charges, with the same right to see supporting documentation. We are drafting the regulations that will give effect to this measure. There will also be sanctions if this requirement is not complied with, including a right for leaseholders to withhold service charges. Landlords would also be vulnerable and open to challenge at a leasehold valuation tribunal if the supporting documents are not available. We need, therefore, to reflect on the need specifically to legislate to compel landlords to retain information for an arbitrary period of time, particularly as it is already in a landlord's interest to do so.
	Proposed new subsection (5)(g)(iii), which can be found in clause 1(2), would place a requirement on landlords to make publicly available requests to the residential property tribunal service as well as the decisions. We think that that is unnecessary, because determinations made by those tribunals that determine matters under the residential property tribunal service are already publicly available through the residential property tribunal service website. Of course, tribunals make all relevant information available to the parties involved in the dispute. We therefore do not need to add additional burdens and costs to the process by asking landlords to make public all requests to the tribunal.
	The final element of clause 1 relates to payment arrangements that must be made by landlords when service charges exceed £12,000 in any 12-month period. I recognise the driver behind the clause. I know that quite a number of local authority leaseholders have received high major works service charge bills that reflect the work being carried out through the decent homes programme to overcome years of neglect. The intention of the clause appears to be to allow leaseholders to spread out their contributions to costs over a longer period. However, we need to ensure there is no ambiguity and to ensure clarity in what is proposed.
	There is a risk that the clause is unlikely to achieve what is intended. In addition, it would also affect all landlords and not just local authority landlords. It would require landlords to make index-linked arrangements for leaseholders to pay in reasonable instalments when contributions exceed £12,000 in any 12-month period. As I said, the clause raises a number of questions that I think would need to be considered. For example, what does it actually mean? Over what period should the instalments be paid? What would be regarded as reasonable instalments? Those matters appear to be left solely to the discretion of the landlord.
	Clause 2 proposes to amend section 105 of the Housing Act 1985. Section 105 deals with the duty on landlord authorities to engage with their secure tenants on housing management matters that are likely substantially to affect them—for example, if there is a new programme of maintenance, improvement or demolition of dwelling houses let by the authority, or a change in policy or practice. Landlord authorities for that purpose mean local authorities, registered housing associations, charitable housing trusts and development corporations. That means that secure tenants of these authorities must be kept informed about the authority's proposals and given the opportunity to comment.
	The Bill would require those landlords similarly to consult their secure tenants on all national Government consultations that substantially affect them and where the landlord intends to respond. As proposed, it would appear that that would be a significant additional burden for any authority to carry, without obvious benefits to the tenants. As drafted, the proposal would also appear not to relate to leaseholders, whereas I believe that the Bill's main aim is to help them.
	Overall, there is a balance to be struck. We all need to satisfy ourselves that what is proposed would provide a greater opportunity for tenants to make their views known to Government, rather than duplicate how the Government received responses. We also need to consider the burden on local authorities and other landlord authorities, which may be forced to consult on issues on which tenants do not wish to engage.
	To recap and conclude, the proposals in the Bill put forward by the hon. Member for Beckenham, while very well intentioned, are already available under existing legislation. I do not think that the changes proposed would deliver real benefits to leaseholders, and there is a danger that they would add significantly to the procedures with which landlords would need to comply. Again, that would create unnecessary burdens and costs—costs that would, in many cases, be passed on to the leaseholders whom the measures are intended to benefit.
	The current position strikes a fair balance between the rights and responsibilities of leaseholders, having taken into consideration the sometimes polarised views of those affected, so the Government cannot support the Bill. However, as I have said, I will certainly look at all the issues closely, and will discuss them with my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing. I ask the House not to support the Bill on Second Reading.

Andrew Dismore: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	The Bill is interesting. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Barry Gardiner), who has done sterling work on the topic. Indeed, the Bill is a carbon copy of the Bill that he promoted.
	Every year the world cuts down enough trees to cover an area the size of Portugal. In 25 countries, forests have effectively disappeared. In a further 29, less than a tenth of their forest cover remains. Such deforestation exacts a terrible toll on the natural environment and accounts for around 18 per cent. of all greenhouse gas emissions globally—more than trains, cars and planes combined. Illegal logging costs timber-producing economies worldwide $10 billion a year. It causes untold environmental damage, promotes corruption, undermines the rule of law, funds armed conflict, harms sustainable development and threatens wildlife. All this happens in some of the world's poorest countries.
	The UK is the world's fourth largest net importer of wood products. Central Government Departments are estimated to purchase some 20 per cent. of all timber bought in the UK. This figure rises to 40 per cent. when local authorities and other Government bodies are included. We can raise the standards of public sector procurement, and by doing so play a significant role in raising standards generally. I am pleased that the Government have decided that from 1 April 2009, only timber from independently verified legal and sustainable sources or from a licensed forest law enforcement, governance and trade—FLEGT—partner will be used on the Government estate, but we must do more.
	In October last year the European Commission presented a proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and the Council laying down obligations on operators who place timber and timber products on the market. There are significant problems with the proposal. It focuses on the first time that timber and timber products are made available on the Community market, regardless of their origin, by determining the obligations of those operators who place timber and timber products on the Community market.
	The proposal is based on the due diligence principle and requires the operators covered by it to apply a system, due diligence, to minimise the risk of placing illegally harvested timber and timber products on the Community market. The proposed measures aim to contribute to global efforts to fight illegal logging by deterring operators from placing on the Community market timber and timber products without a reasonable assurance of their legality. They also provide consumers with the certainty that by buying timber and timber products they do not contribute to the problem of illegal logging and associated trade. Legality is defined on the basis of the legislation of the country of harvest, applicable to forest management, timber harvesting and timber trade. Timber and timber projects covered by a FLEGT licence or a convention on international trade in endangered species permit are considered to have been legally harvested.
	Chatham House produced an impact assessment of three scenarios based on proposals of the EU Commission. The first scenario was on the basis of an operator's self-declaration, which seems to be where it is going, without third-party audit. That is obviously the least robust scenario. The second scenario is an elevated version of the systems used by trade associations that have responsible purchasing policies, combined with the mode of operation of the UK central point of expertise on timber. The third scenario is the strongest one. It includes third-party auditing, and verified third-party legal material is the minimum requirement, whether domestically grown or not. That is the most robust scenario when it comes to due diligence.
	Is due diligence enough? My Bill will go further than that by introducing new criminal offences. I believe that I am in line with the wider view, particularly expressed by non-governmental organisations, in this respect.
	EU timber traders will have to set up a due diligence system to minimise the risk of illegally harvested timber being placed on the European market under the proposals, but those fall short of making it a criminal offence to market illegal timber, and green groups have criticised the draft EU proposals as being too weak to stop the material being sold on the European market. The proposals published by the Commission do not ban illegally sourced timber from entering the EU market. Instead, the proposed regulation intends to minimise the risk of illegally harvested timber being sold in Europe.
	About 27 million cu m of illegal timber enter the EU each year, according to the World Wildlife Fund. The Commission puts the figure at 16 million cu m, but both agree with estimates that just under a fifth of timber imported into the EU is harvested illegally. The EU says that almost half of logging is in vulnerable regions—the Amazon basin, central Africa, south-east Asia, the Russian Federation, and some of the Baltic states. That causes enormous environmental damage and loss of biodiversity, and distorts the market.
	We have also seen a very slow pace in relation to the licensing system under FLEGT, where licensed countries can attest that timber exports have been harvested according to national rules. Up to October 2008, just five countries—Malaysia, Indonesia, Cameroon, Congo and Ghana—had begun negotiating such an agreement with the EU. Ghana was the only one licensed under scheme in September 2008. The pace of negotiations were such that the Council, the European Parliament and the then French presidency repeatedly asked the Commission to put forward further proposals without delay.
	The proposals are disappointing and the green groups have been lobbying for a proposal that would effectively close the EU market to illegally harvested timber.

Huw Irranca-Davies: My hon. Friend makes a valid point on the use of the FLEGT arrangements. But does he agree that while it is frustrating that only three countries have joined up, the process whereby 10 or 11 additional countries are engaged in coming on board with FLEGT, tortuous and difficult though it is, means that we are starting to get something of a cultural change here? Secondly, it is not only a matter of achieving the legality of timber sources through FLEGT, we then need to create genuine sustainability within those communities, for the good of their indigenous peoples.

Andrew Dismore: I would not disagree with any of my hon. Friend's comments, but it is not a matter of either/or, but both. There is nothing wrong with the due diligence process based on FLEGT or otherwise, but we need to go further. It has been suggested that it would be impossible to make criminal sanctions work, yet a prohibition on trade in illegally logged wood products was passed in the United States in May 2009 in an amendment to the Lacey Act.

Barry Gardiner: My hon. Friend is coming on to the Lacey Act and the way of stopping the circumvention. But the essential point is that FLEGT is a good bilateral licensing scheme to ensure that any timber coming from a FLEGT voluntary partnership agreement country will be accepted as legal within the EU. However, that does not stop circumvention—leakage—to other countries. They can then turn that timber into tables, and it enters the EU in another manner. We need a Lacey-style Act, as my hon. Friend said, precisely to stop that circumvention.

Robert Wilson: I am pleased to hear the Minister say that the UK could produce that legislation, because I had not heard of such an agreement before, but I repeat that the Secretary of State said:
	"We need to bring an end to this pernicious trade. Illegal timber should be just that — illegal."
	We have the opportunity to do that, under UK law. I understand what the Minister says about burdens on business, but action to deal with illegal logging is very important to the future of not just this country but the whole world.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I am pleased to respond to this very good debate. It has been noted that it is also a very live debate, as we are in the midst of European negotiations on this subject. We are engaging in live time, not only with my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore), who has introduced the Bill, but with a wide range of stakeholders, including various non-governmental organisations, the Timber Trade Federation, and small and large businesses, all of which are trying to push in the right direction. The question is how we achieve what we are all signed up to do and stop illegally sourced timber from entering not just the UK but anywhere in the EU. How can we do that in a way that delivers what we all want to achieve? That is the nub of our debate. I welcome this genuine debate on the issue, on whether the Bill provides the right way forward and on whether there are alternative ways of achieving what we want. The Bill is set against the background of real-time discussions and negotiations in Europe.

Huw Irranca-Davies: Perhaps we can clarify that further after this debate. As I said, we are hopeful that there will be some prosecutions, but to the best of our knowledge, they have not yet been brought. The Lacey Act has been used to bring successful prosecutions in other areas, but not in respect of timber. We watch with interest because if, as my hon. Friend says, the Act can be shown to work and deliver, we should not discount it out of hand. Let me go on to deal with other points.
	I acknowledge the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) as Chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, and that of my predecessor in my current role, my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Barry Gardiner). He brought forward an earlier Bill, with the WWF and others, which was also well supported. In his former role as special representative on forestry, appointed by the Prime Minister, and in his current role as co-chair of GLOBE International, my hon. Friend has never resiled from his commitment to this issue at any level.
	As others have said, this issue goes to the heart of where we are on climate change, criminality, corruption, the rule of law, good governance in countries, economic development, impacts on indigenous communities and forest eco-systems, and so forth. If we get this right, the impact will be significant. It is how we get it right that lies at the core of the debate. We genuinely support the motivation behind the attempt of my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon to deliver legislation to tackle what has become a quite pernicious trade in illegal timber. It is a global problem not just a UK problem or an EU problem, and it has far-reaching environmental and development impacts.
	We in the UK, as my hon. Friends will recognise, have long called for legislation at EU level on a multilateral basis—with all the frustrations that that involves. Various Committees of this House have said that they recognise the frustrations of a multilateral approach, but they have said at the same time that that has to be the way to deliver on this issue, because taking action on a unilateral basis will not deliver the sort of effects that my hon. Friends are looking for.

Huw Irranca-Davies: As I was careful to qualify, there is great variation in the figures that are quoted. I am not saying that that is the only figure that we should go by.
	The costs are met not by individual households, but by a company's customer base as a whole. The Walker review is carefully assessing the benefits and costs of metering, and the cost-effectiveness of different approaches to metering. For example—my hon. Friend and I have discussed this—a targeted street-by-street roll-out of metering could lower the cost significantly.
	The metering rate is increasing by about 2 per cent. per annum, mainly because customers are opting for meters to cut their bills. That incentive is apparent. Meters can help some customers to save money, but the Government are very aware that some customers—whether metered or unmetered—are struggling with their bills now. They include households that are on a low income but have a high, essential use of water—households that cannot resile from their high use of water—and households in areas with high water bills, notably the south-west.
	Water affordability is a key issue for the Walker review. As I said in last month's debate, households in the south-west do pay more—we cannot get away from the fact—for their water and sewerage services than any other customers in the UK. That reflects the substantial investment that South West Water has made, and has had to make, since privatisation. The cost of such work has fallen on the company's customers. I am aware that 30 per cent. of our nation's beaches are in the south-west, and that South West Water customers meet the costs of cleaning up those beaches that everybody makes use of—myself included. I have to declare an interest, as I have regularly camped in the area. I do not stay in luxurious, five-star hotels; I like the outdoor thrill of camping there with my family and making use of the wonderful beaches.
	Anna Walker is considering the pros and cons of paying for environmental costs nationally—the "equalisation" to which my hon. Friend referred—and I look forward to seeing Anna's interim conclusions on the issue. I also referred in last month's debate to the assistance that is available now—right now—to vulnerable customers through the Government's vulnerable groups tariff, which is also known as Water Sure. The Walker review is looking at whether that tariff should be widened and capped at the national average bill in high-cost areas. The review is also looking at whether the water care package, which has been piloted in the south-west, should be expanded, and at the role that Ofwat might have on affordability. I look forward to seeing Anna's thoughts on all those issues. The good thing about Anna Walker's review is that it is looking at those issues comprehensively, not at one or two in isolation, because it knows that they join up and that the solution will be joined-up.
	My hon. Friend asked whether the timetable for the periodic review, PR09, will prevent Anna Walker's recommendations from being implemented, and whether we will therefore have to wait for the long term. I absolutely assure her that there are procedures for implementing new legislative requirements if they emerge after Ofwat PR09 water price limits. It would not be necessary to wait until the next price review in 2014.
	In conclusion, I am confident that Anna Walker's review can help to achieve the Government's "Future Water" goals, which my hon. Friends share.